BF4Central - All about Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4 destruction will be more like in Bad Company 2

23
DICE were not satisfied with destruction in BF3, and are looking to improve that for Battlefield 4.

Bad Company 2 vs Battlefield 4 destruction
According to DICE, they are increasing the destruction in Battlefield 4 in order to reach the previous levels seen in Bad Company 2.

When it came to destruction, BF3 took a step back compared to Bad Company 2. In BC2, players could famously level buildings to the ground, which wasn’t possible with BF3.



Now in a new interview, DICE admits that they were not satisfied with the level of destruction in BF3, and that they’re looking to improve that in Battlefield 4.

When asked about destruction in BF4, Battlefield 4 producer Aleskander Grondal said:

“I think Bad Company had a better level of destruction than Battlefield 3 and we are the first to admit that. Battlefield 3 didn’t necessarily deliver what we wanted it to be on the destruction level so we’re upping that.”

Grondal added that this means that buildings will once again feature the kind of destruction we saw in Bad Company 2. However, not all buildings will be completely destroyable. For example, the facades on the buildings in Siege of Shaghai map could not be destroyed, unlike in BF3.

Bigger buildings and skyscrapers will remain intact in Battlefield 4, while smaller houses and 2 story buildings can be made to collapse. It all depends on the map and the environment.

We’ve already seen a different type of destruction in Battlefield 4. Selected spots on the Siege of Shanghai map can be destroyed, such as a street that sinks in, or the famous tower collapse.

23 COMMENTS & TRACKBACKS

  1. soldato_fantasma
    June 23rd, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Finally!

  2. WunderKatze
    June 23rd, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    Cool, though I hope it doesn’t turn in to BC2, in which you spawn and blow up the entire map in like seconds, I mean whats the point of skyscrapers you can go into if they only last 30 seconds? Either way BF4 has offered so much content that the game cant be ruined that easy for me.

    • Mini
      June 23rd, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      wdf? Don’t exaggerate things please…

      • WunderKatze
        June 24th, 2013 at 8:36 am

        I’m not exaggerating, in the Harbor rush map the first thing people did was hop into a tank and take out the building with objective B (the one on the right), I think it’s reasonable to think that taking down the skyscrapers may become a better way of attacking that flag then capturing it.

  3. WOOT FTW
    June 23rd, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    I hope they add ground destruction for BF4. I want to dig trenches.

    • mohammad
      June 23rd, 2013 at 7:21 pm

      HAHA ! that would be awesome ! & don’t forget to drop C4 in it for enemies too .

  4. The Iranian
    June 23rd, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    Do not forget that, while BF3 had destruction toned down and limited for tactical uses (such as bringing down building facades), there is indeed destruction that is capable of bringing certain buildings down, just as it was in Bad Company 2. Just for clarification.

    • WOOT FTW
      June 23rd, 2013 at 9:39 pm

      But the destruction was no where near what Arica Harbor looked like after a good match. EVERYTHING was flattened!

      • The Iranian
        June 23rd, 2013 at 11:22 pm

        True indeed, Arica Harbor had many buildings that were able to be brought down.

        • phobia
          June 24th, 2013 at 3:23 am

          Yes, which allowed for great gameplay…. both teams camping the entire round in collapsed buildings.
          You could hardly see them and hitting them was a problem due to faulty map design (hitting invisible obstructions).

  5. Individual
    June 23rd, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    The thing is..while they admit the destruction has been toned down for BF3, it was a key feature that they have boasted about before and even slightly after BF3 was released.

    With quotes like “Battlefield 3 features unrivaled distruction” it’s sad that they now admit that an older game had better destruction mechanisms.

    Marketing strategies, can’t trust anyone nowdays…

    • phobia
      June 24th, 2013 at 3:26 am

      They will say about anything for the purpose of boosting sales…
      And yet they are not judged by the consumer.

    • Tenzing
      June 24th, 2013 at 10:46 pm

      Well, I think they touted destruction on BF3 was because not many other fps can offer destructible environments.

  6. roflsunriz
    June 24th, 2013 at 12:15 am

    Yeah, that’s what we’ve waited for.

  7. Hard Dominator
    June 24th, 2013 at 4:13 am

    As long as they fix the infinite frontage dropping down on you every time they fire an rpg at the top of the building i’m fine with it.

  8. Your Sandwich
    June 24th, 2013 at 4:39 am

    It’s like a politician who talks about what he will do if you’ll vote for him =)

  9. NahYoChill
    June 24th, 2013 at 7:27 am

    “I think Bad Company had a better level of destruction than Battlefield 3 and we are the first to admit that.”

    BULLSHET. they’re the last to admit it.

  10. danvan
    June 24th, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    But bf3 destruction was more dynamic

    • Stoshy
      August 15th, 2013 at 8:23 pm

      So you had one or two concrete buildings who’s roofs could be blown off. It wasn’t featured prominently in the game. It was mostly static environments with blocks that would drop debris if blown up. There was a lack of buildings, and many of those that were in the game did not crumble or crash. It was just one stone/metal skeleton. I’d argue that Bad Company 2 had more dynamic destruction. Buildings would go through punishment. Holes in buildings could be used as vantage points for ambushes. Trees could be blown to pieces to clear line of sight. Terrain could be deformed to create trenches and fox holes.

      Battlefield 3 had none of that.
      Its newer maps were nothing more than large empty fields surrounding a few shacks and a building or two in the center of the map. Not even Karkand could compare to Port Valdez or White Pass. Don’t even get me started on Africa Harbor and Atacama Desert.

  11. serialmania
    June 24th, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    We need better sound and more realistic destruction and we are good to go!

  12. Curtis
    June 25th, 2013 at 10:25 am

    I don’t think anybody was satisfied with the destruction in Battlefield 3. I want to drive a tank through a building, not get stuck on a fence panel.

  13. foxy
    June 26th, 2013 at 3:49 am

    Please get rid of the indestructible rubber trees that were found in BF3…undergrowth etc in BF:BC2 was much better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>